[Lorric]

Yeah. Despite everything, most regular people are not assholes. It's merely that it's assholes who are most often reported on. Afterall, "A system operator came to job today and browsed Facebook for 6 hours." isn't exactly an exciting headline, especially since that's what most people do at work anyway. But if you've got a scandal, people will want to read about that. People tend to forget that for every asshole that makes the news, there are millions of decent people who don't.

Yes. So many cynics around here. I may make a thread on it one day, the amount of cynicism on HLP disturbs me.

Forget about the media. Look at your own lives, people. How much bad stuff do you actually see with your own eyes compared to good stuff?

[Luis Dias]

That particular statistic is irrelevant and immaterial. It matters not one bolt if the percentage of "good" people is 10% or 95%. What matters is that there's at least 5% who will abuse this kind of material. And if the company who holds this data is composed of at least 20 people, the chances there's at least one big asshole who will abuse this kind of thing to his advantage, or that there will be kids who will take advantage of this system, or ETC., is pretty high.

Systems must be designed with an architecture that is "jackass-proof", in a kind of an "anti-fragile" way. To simply assume goodwill of strangers is *not* good policy, it's naiveté at best, absolute incompetence and idiocy at worst.

[The E]

Unfortunately, good people doing good things are in the minority.

I think it's the other way around.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

What is this surveillance regime going to do?
Effectively stalk a bunch of underage kids on the off chance that the people doing the stalking can find and head off instances of cyber bullying.

Who is going to do the stalking?
A bunch of people of unknown proficiency and unknown personal predilections.

Bottom Line: Since we cannot vet the people doing the surveillance, and since it's rather unlikely that this will have many positive effects (Here's a hint: If Facebook et al are known to be surveilled, what do you think are the kids who are even slightly clued up about this going to do? What happens as soon as the cyberbullying switches to private forms of communication this surveillance apparatus is unable to cover?), why do you believe it's a good idea?

There are many analogies one could make in regards to this kind of overzealous reaction to some perceived danger to kids, but they're unnecessary, really. The reason behind this thing is the desire of some parents that their kids be safe all the time, and the reaction of the school board to that. The reason why this is bad because it's a desire that is fundamentally impossible to fulfill, and might in fact just endanger the people it is supposed to be helping. Think about it: Now that this program is in place, how many weeks and months of back-padding and self-congratulatory behaviour is going to ensue until it turns out that it kids are still bullying each other over these newfangled devices?

[Lorric]

That particular statistic is irrelevant and immaterial. It matters not one bolt if the percentage of "good" people is 10% or 95%. What matters is that there's at least 5% who will abuse this kind of material. And if the company who holds this data is composed of at least 20 people, the chances there's at least one big asshole who will abuse this kind of thing to his advantage, or that there will be kids who will take advantage of this system, or ETC., is pretty high.

Systems must be designed with an architecture that is "jackass-proof", in a kind of an "anti-fragile" way. To simply assume goodwill of strangers is *not* good policy, it's naiveté at best, absolute incompetence and idiocy at worst.

There is no foolproof system. There are bent cops, bent doctors and bent teachers. But the good outweighs the bad.

What is this surveillance regime going to do?
Effectively stalk a bunch of underage kids on the off chance that the people doing the stalking can find and head off instances of cyber bullying.

Who is going to do the stalking?
A bunch of people of unknown proficiency and unknown personal predilections.

Bottom Line: Since we cannot vet the people doing the surveillance, and since it's rather unlikely that this will have many positive effects (Here's a hint: If Facebook et al are known to be surveilled, what do you think are the kids who are even slightly clued up about this going to do? What happens as soon as the cyberbullying switches to private forms of communication this surveillance apparatus is unable to cover?), why do you believe it's a good idea?

There are many analogies one could make in regards to this kind of overzealous reaction to some perceived danger to kids, but they're unnecessary, really. The reason behind this thing is the desire of some parents that their kids be safe all the time, and the reaction of the school board to that. The reason why this is bad because it's a desire that is fundamentally impossible to fulfill, and might in fact just endanger the people it is supposed to be helping. Think about it: Now that this program is in place, how many weeks and months of back-padding and self-congratulatory behaviour is going to ensue until it turns out that it kids are still bullying each other over these newfangled devices?

They're not going to hire Joe Schmoe. It will be the best for the job out of dozens of applicants.

Private communication can be blocked. Public is there for everyone to see.

Bullying is on the rise. It needs to be clamped down on.

[Phantom Hoover]

lorric you have surely just been or are in school, how the hell do you get this idea that the only people they'd hire are unfailingly responsible and benevolent

[TwentyPercentCooler]

That particular statistic is irrelevant and immaterial. It matters not one bolt if the percentage of "good" people is 10% or 95%. What matters is that there's at least 5% who will abuse this kind of material. And if the company who holds this data is composed of at least 20 people, the chances there's at least one big asshole who will abuse this kind of thing to his advantage, or that there will be kids who will take advantage of this system, or ETC., is pretty high.

Systems must be designed with an architecture that is "jackass-proof", in a kind of an "anti-fragile" way. To simply assume goodwill of strangers is *not* good policy, it's naiveté at best, absolute incompetence and idiocy at worst.

Thank you.

Yes, bullying is tragic, but we already have rules in place to prevent it. The same parents that are crying about it are the ones that will storm into the school offices screaming when their precious little snowflake gets disciplined, and they're the ones completely undermining the authority of the teachers and administrators, preventing them from consistently enforcing the rules. Telling these helicopter parents that their child is not special and is subject to the same rules and punishments as anyone else and if they don't like it to go pound sand is a cheaper and more effective solution than hiring some incredibly shady contractor to spy on the kids.

A lot of people seem to be forgetting how things like this work anyway. This /might/ work for a short amount of time, and then, the kids will adapt and it will just be throwing money down the drain. Nobody in the high school age range uses most of the sites on that list anyway (source: I have a high-school age sibling who is unfathomably "popular," and thus I get to see a pretty good cross-section of the high school mindset), the "popular" things are Vine and Snapchat.

Lorric, it's nice that you haven't gotten bitter and jaded, but believing that no one will abuse the information they collect is the SAME ARGUMENT that people are making in this thread about why you shouldn't put any personal information online. It will get abused, end of story.

[The E]

They're not going to hire Joe Schmoe. It will be the best for the job out of dozens of applicants.

Are you sure of that? See, the thing is, there are companies out there that basically provide forum moderators for hire. These poor souls have to wade through page after page of what humanity ****s out onto the internet. Do you know how long these people last before they're burnt out? Before they go on to a job that won't destroy their souls and whatever faith in humanity they have left? The answer is, not very long. They rely on workers that they can hire quickly and let go quickly, not trained professionals.

Even if the companies have a list of social media profiles to work through (And what are the chances of such a list being complete?), how much are they really going to see? What happens if the kids decide to abandon the standard social networks?

Private communication can be blocked. Public is there for everyone to see.

Yes, but cyberbullying is not restricted to messaging. Hate posts and character assassination pieces can be posted anonymously, and since these people can only flag stuff for the attention of school authorities, their ability to police these things before they become acute problems is sharply limited.

Bullying is on the rise. It needs to be clamped down on.

I don't disagree with this, but is it necessary to put everyone under surveillance because a few people misbehave?

[Luis Dias]

I didn't say "foolproof", Lorric. I said "anti-fragile". Look it up. It means a system that is characterized by a tendency to improve itself up and fail to the least damaging side, not the worst side.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

They're not going to hire Joe Schmoe. It will be the best for the job out of dozens of applicants.

No they are going to outsource it to the cheapest source that will do the job.

Direct quote from the company via CNN.

To do the work, Frydrych employs no more than 10 full-time staffers -- as well as "a larger portion" of contract workers across the globe who labor a maximum of four hours a day because "the content they read is so dark and heavy," Frydrych said.

[Lorric]

Are you sure of that? See, the thing is, there are companies out there that basically provide forum moderators for hire. These poor souls have to wade through page after page of what humanity ****s out onto the internet. Do you know how long these people last before they're burnt out? Before they go on to a job that won't destroy their souls and whatever faith in humanity they have left? The answer is, not very long. They rely on workers that they can hire quickly and let go quickly, not trained professionals.

Even if the companies have a list of social media profiles to work through (And what are the chances of such a list being complete?), how much are they really going to see? What happens if the kids decide to abandon the standard social networks?

I remember the Facebook mod topic. I think it was on here. But this would not be on such a scale, a big school has like 1000-2000 pupils. Not all of these will have internet access or be bothered about online socialising. A load more simply won't be flagged up by the software. The way I'd imagine it going would be they look into individuals flagged up by the software and be asked to investigate certain individuals by the school. The workload wouldn't be that huge.

Yes, but cyberbullying is not restricted to messaging. Hate posts and character assassination pieces can be posted anonymously, and since these people can only flag stuff for the attention of school authorities, their ability to police these things before they become acute problems is sharply limited.

It's not a foolproof system by any means, and there probably isn't such a thing. But it's surely much better than nothing. It would still catch people out and make bullies have to work harder and cut down their options. If they have to bully off the main sites, the effectiveness of said bullying will be reduced. A lot of bullies are idiots as well, they'd fall into the traps.

I don't disagree with this, but is it necessary to put everyone under surveillance because a few people misbehave?

Even though everyone is, I'm sure in reality it won't be like that. Human eyes will never see the majority of the students' online profiles.

[The E]

I remember the Facebook mod topic. I think it was on here. But this would not be on such a scale, a big school has like 1000-2000 pupils. Not all of these will have internet access or be bothered about online socialising. A load more simply won't be flagged up by the software. The way I'd imagine it going would be they look into individuals flagged up by the software and be asked to investigate certain individuals by the school. The workload wouldn't be that huge.

That does not sound like the system they've described here. It would also be even more useless, since you cannot make an algorithmic determination of whether a given post is bullying or not. You can flag keywords, but you're still going to have to deal with stuff that is mostly irrelevant.

It's not a foolproof system by any means, and there probably isn't such a thing. But it's surely much better than nothing. It would still catch people out and make bullies have to work harder and cut down their options. If they have to bully off the main sites, the effectiveness of said bullying will be reduced. A lot of bullies are idiots as well, they'd fall into the traps.

That's a lot of wishful thinking. If a kid wants to hurt another, he or she will find a way to do so. Never underestimate the inventiveness of kids.

Even though everyone is, I'm sure in reality it won't be like that. Human eyes will never see the majority of the students' online profiles.

That is not the point. Haven't you followed the public debate about overly broad NSA/GCHQ/<insert spy agency here> surveillance at all?
Even if 99% of this surveillance is automated (which it can't be, because we cannot find algorithms to filter something as hazily defined as bullying), you're still talking about having a bunch of people paid to trawl through children's social media activity for signs of unwanted behaviours.

[Phantom Hoover]

It's not a foolproof system by any means, and there probably isn't such a thing. But it's surely much better than nothing. It would still catch people out and make bullies have to work harder and cut down their options. If they have to bully off the main sites, the effectiveness of said bullying will be reduced. A lot of bullies are idiots as well, they'd fall into the traps.

That's a lot of wishful thinking. If a kid wants to hurt another, he or she will find a way to do so. Never underestimate the inventiveness of kids.

just like how if a criminal wants a gun they will find one, thereby rendering gun control pointless?

[The E]

just like how if a criminal wants a gun they will find one, thereby rendering gun control pointless?

oh that's a cheap shot right there. Which, I am aware, is what I was making too. (Not that your point is entirely relevant or correct in my opinion, but I would ask that we keep that particular discussin out of this one)

[Luis Dias]

Yes please, before Nakura gets a chance of detecting it.

[Lorric]

That does not sound like the system they've described here. It would also be even more useless, since you cannot make an algorithmic determination of whether a given post is bullying or not. You can flag keywords, but you're still going to have to deal with stuff that is mostly irrelevant.

I see where I've gone wrong here. The very first paragraph:

The Glendale School District in California is facing some backlash from the recent news that it has retained the services of Geo Listening to track its students' social media activity. The rationale behind the program is (of course) the students' safety.

"Geo Listening" sounds like a software program. And when they said "program" in the paragraph, I took it to mean it was a program. But it's actually a company, there's a link there in that paragraph, but I never clicked it on the first read. So sorry about that. This link:

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/news/tn-gnp-me-monitoring-20130824,0,4640365.story

Back to the original though, look at all this, it still sounds like a program the way this is written out. Kind of amusing really. I was feeling rather embarrassed after that first paragraph, but after reading this again, not anymore.

What Geo Listening appears to do is nothing more than aggregate public social media posts linked to either the students or school district. Geo Listening repeatedly points out that it doesn't "monitor email, SMS, MMS, phone calls, voicemails or unlock any privacy setting of a social network user."

This seems to be true, but not necessarily because Geo Listening is concerned about privacy. In its privacy policy, it breaks down exactly what it does monitor.
Geo Listening is a social media monitoring system that allows school districts to locate and process publicly available social media content. School districts use the Geo Listening Services to access and aggregate publicly available content on the Internet into regular reports and dashboards. Public content is collected and provided to school districts from the following websites:

·         Twitter;
·         Facebook;
·         Instagram;
·         Picasa;
·         Vine;
·         Flickr;
·         Ask.fm;
·         YouTube; and
·         Google+.
By monitoring only public posts on social media services, Geo Listening is able to provide the district with reports on 13,000 students. Without having access to a report, it's tough to say exactly what Geo Listening is turning over to the district. Here's what it says it's looking for:
Geo Listening provides social media monitoring services (“Geo Listening Services”) that enable school districts to locate and process publicly available information about their students for the purposes of combating bullying, cyber-bullying, hate and shaming activities, depression, harm and self harm, self hate and suicide, crime, vandalism, substance abuse and truancy.
There are some very broad terms in that list and without more information on how Geo Listening tracks or aggregates posts that fall into this very wide net, it looks as though the system is apt to produce a lot of false positives.

Then there's the question about how it searches for offending posts. Does it only run current students through its digital sifter or does it include anyone who lists a Glendale school on their profile? Does this dragnet also capture comments, tweets, etc. from non-students who interact with Glendale students? If a student interacts with a non-student's post that falls afoul of the guidelines, can they be punished? These are just a few of the many questions this monitoring service raises.

But what it actually is sounds better to me, as it does to you. Because the reality is some kids don't report bullying, and sometimes the first the parents know about it is when they find their kid hanging from a rope.

That's a lot of wishful thinking. If a kid wants to hurt another, he or she will find a way to do so. Never underestimate the inventiveness of kids.

Oh yes. But it will stop some.

That is not the point. Haven't you followed the public debate about overly broad NSA/GCHQ/<insert spy agency here> surveillance at all?
Even if 99% of this surveillance is automated (which it can't be, because we cannot find algorithms to filter something as hazily defined as bullying), you're still talking about having a bunch of people paid to trawl through children's social media activity for signs of unwanted behaviours.

I just think it's acceptable risk vs reward.

Schools I went to didn't give a crap about bullying. Bullies basically got to do whatever they wanted.

[Polpolion]

As far as I'm concerned, it's Facebook's job to keep bullying and harassment in check on Facebook. Schools generally aren't responsible for student's activities that are unaffiliated with the school, so I don't see why they should worry about Facebook. I certainly didn't expect my teachers to intervene when I made an ass of myself on here when I was in middle school. They have plenty of other things they should be doing with the money they're spending on this.

Because the reality is some kids don't report bullying, and sometimes the first the parents know about it is when they find their kid hanging from a rope.

I would rather teach kids how to deal with bullies than nanny them.

[Lorric]

I would rather teach kids how to deal with bullies than nanny them.

Oh really? And how exactly would you do that?

[Polpolion]

I would rather teach kids how to deal with bullies than nanny them.

Oh really? And how exactly would you do that?

You seem to be under the impression that kids are mindless idiots. It's not difficult blocking and reporting someone on social networks; rest assured, they can handle it.

[Lorric]

I would rather teach kids how to deal with bullies than nanny them.

Oh really? And how exactly would you do that?

You seem to be under the impression that kids are mindless idiots. It's not difficult blocking and reporting someone on social networks; rest assured, they can handle it.

Not that easy if they go on a campaign and turn everyone against someone.

[Polpolion]

Yet it's far easier than having the student's school hire a contractor to watch everyone and punish accordingly...